Posts Tagged ‘shirley sherrod’

In a classic case of horrible timing Andrew Brietbart came into the bloggers lounge just as my Radio show was about to start ( 10 a.m).

Since I had several pre-recorded segments I figured I might be able to grab him for a few minutes, in between, alas that was not the case as my windows were too small, he was however very generous with his time to everyone in the blogger, answered every question and never talked down to anyone despite his national prominence.

When the show was done I went to the lobby and Andrew was talking another group of fans, and again giving of his time. I approached him at that point and he was kind enough to ahem “sit” for an interview:

Well “sit” in a metaphorical sense. As soon as he agreed to be interviewed, he promptly jumped on a table and lay down thus:

Andrew Breitbarts "sits" for an interview at CPAC 2011

When I first saw the photo I instantly thought of this:

But Breitbart is entirely serious, his exposure of the Pigford case has prompted attack after attack from Media Matters desperate to make their twisted version of Breitbart the story. (Hey it’s what Soros pays them for). The problem for Media matters is that Pigford can’t really handle the scrutiny:

“I have to say in the beginning I was cautious…When Andrew called, I [said] ‘I hope you aren’t just trying to gin this whole thing up to make amends for [Sherrod],’” Schafer said. “But this is solid. I mean it is solid background they dug out people, files, times, and dates. They have put together a pretty impressive body of work.”

His presentation on Pigford was devastating:

* Tom Burrell, president the Black Farmers and Agriculture Association, of tells potential claimants what happened when the checks hit the streets: “Where did you get that new truck from? Why is Sears Roebuck visiting your house? … Something’s up.
* “This lawsuit is not a farming lawsuit, it’s a discrimination lawsuit. … Who wants to go through the process today? Get paid?”
* On the four questions that supposedly act as a test for claims in Pigford: “Look at the four questions like a baseball game … When do you get a score?”
* Stranahan then says that Burrell gives them the correct — and allegedly unchallengeable — answers that will win them a Pigford score. “Did he own land? Let’s suppose the answer is no. The judge is going to give you three more shots at it. … Did he ATTEMPT to own? … How does the judge know if you tried? [Laughter] … Congress set up a system … “everyone who says they tried [unintelligible] then you have to give them credit for it.”
* “The issue is not whether you farmed in 1965, but whether you were discriminated against in 1981-1996. … My sister said my daddy went to the USDA office between 1981 and 1996. … The judge says you get paid.”

With a republican House willing to follow-up on this stuff, the subject has to be changed so presto here comes the defamation lawsuit:

Shirley Sherrod has filed a lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart over a video released by the conservative personality that lead to her ouster as an official at the USDA.

Breitbart was served on Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), according to the New York Times: “In the suit, which was filed in Washington on Friday, Ms. Sherrod says the video has damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.”

The “We are Acorn Mighty Mighty Acorn” left are positively drooling over this but the ability to deflect one press conference for one day can’t compare to what is going to follow:

This seems like a dangerous play for Mrs. Sherrod, because now Andrew and the Bigs can depose her, her friends, get documents they couldn’t otherwise get, and conduct all manner of discovery on her. In other words, they have the power of the law to dig deeper into the scandal. In fact, it’s probably something Andrew has been dreaming about for months.

Or as his official release puts it:

Mr. Breitbart categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights.

The real problem for the left is this. Breitbart’s under bright lights shows what he does as the legitimate reporting it is, its what he’s been wanting since day one. The left under light can’t say the same. Expect the left to quietly drop this suit when the heat of discovery process gets too hot for them and expect that to be a single line at the bottom of page F39 for the MSM. If their goal was to try to win one day of media then fine you accomplished that but like the national credit card that the left has been living on for decades, payment will come due WITH INTEREST and Andrew Breitbart will be collecting.

…and the tea parties (which had nothing to do with her) while defending the NAACP that condemned her and shilling for cash for them:

But you and I have to make sure that people all across the country who wage a daily struggle against poverty and racism have support networks as well. And that’s why your personal involvement in sustaining the NAACP is so critical.

I’m sure whatever satisfaction the NAACP provided was more attractive than the discovery phase of a Breitbart lawsuit would be.

One comment: Am I the only one who found it ironic that her statement attacking Fox, defending the NAACP, and begging suckers liberals to sustain them came out after the 9th circuit defended the lie as protected speech?

Memeorandum thread here.

…at David Horowitz News Real Blog about the sudden invisibility of Shirley Sherrod and that’s this.

From what I’ve seen of Andrew Breitbart he is a great poker player, but looking closer and closer at the Sherrod case he might just be a chess player too.

You will recall he was very careful about the release of the ACORN tapes spacing them out and getting the media to fall into trap after trap until ACORN was a broken organization.

Also recall that Breitbart is a totally intergrated web person who worked regularly with Matt Drudge before venturing out on his own. He knows the web well, and that he had the initial video stuff months before he used it.

Is it reasonable to think that he would not have googled this woman? In just a few weeks enough info has come out about her that she has become radioactive. Can one assume that before his initial (and still ignored) column Brietbart or his assistants would have done the same research that others have done and been aware of the trap that the media was being setup for?

Breitbart Nailed the NAACP and the White house, but people forget, they are not his primary targets overall (although he does say in this case the NAACP was). The media is and always has been the wall that he has been chipping away at.

To what degree was this a media trap and with the deification and disappearance of Shirley Sherrod from that national conscience did he manage to make his media case after all?

What do you think?

has produced some reaction in comments and from some friends who were surprised at my reaction. For those who are unsure, two posts at other blogs make my point best.

The short version comes from Robert Stacy:

A government official successfully pursuing a defamation suit against a private citizen is quite nearly impossible.

Any responsible lawyer would provide three words of helpful advice to Shirley Sherrod: “Discovery’s a bitch.”

The long version is at the American Thinker:

This past Sunday, in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle, “Willie’s World,” veteran black politico Willie Brown confirmed that “there is more to the story than just [Sherrod’s] remarks.”

“As an old pro,” Brown acknowledged, “I know that you don’t fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place.” Brown observed that Sherrod had been a thorn in the USDA’s side for years, that many had objected to her hiring, and that she had been “operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN.” Although Brown does not go into detail, he alludes to a class action lawsuit against the USDA in which she participated some years ago.

In the way of background, in 1997, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by four hundred other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways, from price support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton’s use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford’s claims dating back to 1983.

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers — more realistically, their attorneys — for fifty grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness. If any of the presumably racist USDA offenders were punished, that news escaped the media.

Is this all talk? Is there an actual suit that will be filed? Boy does this administration hope not.